General comments

6.18.1.4 needs to have examples of how to record this element. Examples were not originally present because the only example would have been:

arranged

Based on the access point examples they have given for 6.28.3.2.1, it would appear that at 6.18.1.4 they would want the cataloger to record:

Transcription. Concert band. Schuller

Arrangement. Japanese instruments. Okano

Arrangement. Piano, 4 hands. Leithner

Orchestration

Transcription. Guitar

However there is nothing that instructs the cataloger to record this as one instance of element with the three characteristics separated by a period. Or would the element be repeated?:

Transcription
Concert band
Schuller

Arrangement
Japanese instruments
Okano

etc.

In MARC 381 would you record:

381 $a Transcription. Concert band. Schuller

or

381 $a Transcription $a Concert band $a Schuller

or

381 $a Transcription
381 $a Concert band
381 $a Schuller

In 6.28.3.2.1, I don't see how Appendix E instructions are sufficient to arrive at the access points that they are suggesting. Arrangements are punctuated, according to Appendix E, using a semicolon. The only time Other distinguishing characteristics of the expression for a musical expression are enclosed within parentheses is the term "Sketches" - at least according to Appendix E. Therefore, it would seem that the terms for arrangements should be separated by a semicolon or else appendix E needs to have information added to it. Finally, there would seem to be little precedent to separate the separate bits of information by a period, unless specific instructions are added to RDA chapter 6 and/or Appendix E.

since separate characteristics are normally separated by a colon. To arrive at the form of the examples in the proposal, there needs to be an instruction to record the bits as a single element with the bits separated by a period. Showing this by examples alone is not adequate.

Finally, I think an example would now be needed under the Alternative to 6.28.3.2.1.

- Glennan (PCC) for Adam Schiff, University of Washington (8/3/12)

MLA response:

First, some comments on the details of the proposed revisions. Adam Schiff raises good questions about punctuation in the examples. In addition to his suggestion that an example would now be needed under the proposed alternative to 6.28.3.2.1, the proposed alternative to 6.18.1.4 could also use an example, even though as Adam points out the example would simply be "arranged," plus a brief citation of the resource described. An MLA commenter points out that the proposed optional addition to 6.28.3.2.1 would also need an example, strange looking as it may be, and that glossary definitions for the proposed distinct categories of arrangement, transcription, and orchestration would need to accompany 6.18.1.4a and 6.28.3.2.1a. This commenter also notes that 6.18.1.4b and 6.28.3.2.1b would need to include specific guidance on terminology for the medium of performance and that 6.18.1.4c and 6.28.3.2.1c would need to include guidance on what form of name to record. Another MLA commenter questions why the additional identifying element of key is not suggested, since that can be a useful way of identifying an arrangement.

Now, some concerns about the big picture. One MLA commenter cites a passage from FRBR, p. 21: "On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic distinctions are made between variant expressions of a work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on the anticipated needs of users and on what the cataloguer can reasonably be expected to recognize from the manifestation being described." This commenter also cites a passage from FRAD, p. 10, which quotes most of the above and adds: "Variations that would be evident only from a detailed analysis and comparison of expressions would normally be reflected in authority data only if the nature or stature of the work warranted such analysis, and only if it was anticipated that the distinction would be important to users."

These passages take a practical stance and could serve as justification for continuing past practice of creating "super-expression" records and access points (using just the generic "arranged" for all arrangements of the same work, regardless of differences in medium of performance or arranger).

The EURIG proposal goes beyond FRBR in making a distinction among arrangements, transcriptions, and orchestrations, which doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, especially since transcriptions and orchestrations are types of arrangements. What would be the implications for our legacy data? What would be the implications for linked data?

As for medium of performance and name of arranger, these are definitely useful pieces of information, but would be coded as distinct elements in expression records in a pure WEMI environment. Expression access points aren’t the be-all end-all means of identifying "expressions of expressions" (i.e., arrangements for specific mediums of performance by specific arrangers), and in fact, such detailed expression access points could wreak havoc in the database.

Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 9/20/12

I agree with the MLA response (after all, I contributed to it!). One final concern from me: I do not agree with the Alternative; why would the authorized access point content be determined by the content of the descriptive data – wouldn't this then mix expression & manifestation data? The Alternative makes sense when looking at a single bib. record but wouldn’t make sense when looking at the WEMI “records” as a whole. Perhaps the Alternative should be to simply add “arranged” instead – regardless of the content of the description.

- Glennan (PCC) 9/28/12

I too am concerned that this proposal throws too much into the access point, creating a stark rift with past practice, creating extra work for the cataloger, and possibly leading to unhelpfully long opac displays. Perhaps this proposal, with its reliance on headings, reflects too much of the need to force RDA to function in a MARC environment, and as such is looking too short-term?--Patricia Dragon 11:50, 28 September 2012 (PDT)(CCDA)

Recognizes that a revision is desirable, but it should address all of the musical expressions covered by 6.28.3, not just arrangements. A more global revision that would allow using the elements prescribed under 6.27.3 would make some of the changes proposed to 6.28.3.2.1 unnecessary (e.g. adding the name of the arranger or having the optional addition). We suggest that these revisions be deferred to the RDA Music Joint Working Group.

6.18.4: Does not support proposed revision; they are the same as proposed for the access point at 6.28.3.2.1. The "specification of the nature of the expression" should be established as a new element or as an element sub-type. Does not see the utility of making distinctions between types of arrangements.

Medium of performance, as defined in the Glossary, relates exclusively to the entity "work" and thus is not appropriate to identify the medium of performance of an arrangement. The appropriate element would be Medium of Performance of Expression, which is defined in FRAD but not in RDA. CCC supports the creation of this element, as well as Numeric Designation of a Musical Expression and Key of Expression.

The name of the arranger is already provided for in RDA under the element Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression. A new element is not required.

6.28.3.2.1: Does not support the proposed revision chiefly because it would defeat the objective of continuity with AACR2 access points and create split files without bringing tangible benefits. It would be neither useful nor practical to determine the nature of the expression. Notes that not all identifying elements need to be included in access points, only those that are required to distinguish between expressions. However, the proposal requires that the elements specified in paragraphs a), b) and c) would be added systematically.

If RDA was revised to allow using the elements prescribed under 6.27.3 when constructing access points for arrangements, cataloguers would have enough elements at their disposal to make access points unique, including the name of the arranger (as Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression). The optional addition would also be unnecessary.

Agree that "arranged" is insufficient.However, we feel that the recommended new terms shown at a), arrangement, transcription, and orchestration to characterize the nature of such arrangements, are not mutually exclusive, and more than one could be correctly assigned to the same resource.

Recording medium of performance, shown in b) in the proposal, is already provided for under 6.15.

Regarding c), the name of the arranger, we consider an arranger a contributor whose name would be recorded as bearing a relationship to an expression of the original work rather than being recorded as proposed. We would not distinguish between an arrangement by the original composer and one by another person (etc.).

Arrangements issues are on the agenda of the RDA Music Joint Working Group.

Change to RDA instruction and examples at 6.28.3.2.1 Arrangements of “Classical,” Etc. Music:

Effectively a hole in the instructions (no option to add another distinguishing feature in 6.28.3.2.1). Agree that medium (point b) in the proposal) could
sometimes serve to distinguish different expressions of the same work.

In relation to point c), in LC's testing the addition of elements such as the name of an editor, arranger, or performer led to some very cumbersome constructions, given that Western music’s standard repertory includes numerous different arrangements, editions, and performances of the same work.

We believe it is necessary (and useful to users) to create unique authorized access points for expressions. We therefore believe that authorized access points for expressions need to include "Arranged", the medium of performance and the name of the arranger (if known), even when it is the same as the name of the composer. This data should be included in an authorized access point for an expression even when available elsewhere in a descriptive record. We suggest the alternative rule should be deleted.

We consider transcriptions and orchestrations to be types of arrangements and that to avoid confusion the term "Arranged" should be used in all cases.

Suggests format change to examples and requests example with a medium of performance that includes more than one term.

Proposes wording changes to 6.18.1.4 & 6.28.3.2.1, including adding the name of the arranger, even when it’s the same as the composer.